Talk:Richard Mille

Improving this page

It's true this page seems like a brochure for RM watches that exist only to boost the brand's prestige and "officialness"

I have added some criticisms of the brand to even it out a bit, and might add a controversies section soon. If you can please review this page and see if any information is spammy and should be removed. I see several candidates but I've already edited this page quite a bit and would appreciate a second opinion. Itanalot (talk) 05:23, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Including criticism

Could editors refrain from adding criticism of the brand into the article unless these criticisms are of particular notability?

Adding subjective opinions of certain authors and publications gives undue weight to these opinions and upsets the article's neutral tone. They are also irrelevant to the informative purpose of the article. timceharris (talk) 05:23, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

These are well sourced criticisms and deserve coveage in this article - which was a borderline advertisement even with the criticism included. Removing it takes us even further from neutrality. You're removing the NY Times here - a gold standard for sourcing on Wikipedia. - MrOllie (talk) 22:40, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

The criticisms included were subjective. Saying that certain people find the watches "ridiculous" or "unnecessarily extravagant" is not necessary information. Just because you can find sources for people having these opinions does not make them relevant to the article. Wikipedia's guidance on criticism specifically advises against giving undue weight to criticism, and including subjective comments from certain journalists is a clear example of undue weight, especially considering that these criticisms do not appear next to positive comments on the watches. Address the tone of the article instead by rewriting sentences so it does not read like an advert. Timceharris (talk) 22:56, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

All criticism is 'subjective', that does not mean it is banned from Wikipedia. That you personally find the information unnecessary does not mean it should be removed - reception is extremely relevant and is routinely covered all across Wikipedia. You have not remotely shown that this is undue weight. Are you associated with this company in some fashion? MrOllie (talk) 23:00, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Major controversy about a company can and should be included, but I fail to see why people's opinions of a company's products are noteworthy enough to be included in an article. Articles on other major watch brands such as Rolex, Omega, Cartier, and Patek Philippe do not include these kinds of criticisms in their opening paragraphs, nor do they contain criticism sections.

As to why these criticisms are undue weight, it is because editorial pieces representing the opinions of singular authors have been sighted and presented as if these are frequent and notable criticisms of the watches, especially considering they are not presented with positive opinions. This gives the articles opening paragraph a clear negative tone. Timceharris (talk) 23:15, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

I asked you a question: do you intend to answer it? MrOllie (talk) 23:17, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

No, I am not associated with this company. Timceharris (talk) 23:22, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

I reject that criticism of Richard Mille is limited to a few people. These are not uncommon sentiments.

Wikipedia's policy is to:

"(...) [represent] fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic."

The question becomes whether criticism by watch reseller Chrono24 or by owner Puff Daddy (Sean Combs) represent a significant view, and whether they are fair and proportionate. I do believe they are significant views. Chrono24 deals in many of these watches and is greatly involved in the buying and selling of RM watches. Puff Daddy is an owner of an RM watch and is one of few opinions on the internet by actual owners. Further, these criticisms are not unreasonable. In other words, I believe a reasonable person would have these criticisms. Thus, I also believe they are fair and proportionate.

Your conjecture relating this article to other watch manufacturers is curious. Rolex has an entire paragraph detailing an incident where a person was murdered to facilitate the robbery of their watch. However, you reverted a similar entry in this article as part of an omnibus reversion. Similarly, Omega has a "Controversy" section, and Cartier has a paragraph dedicated to criticizing its environmental record.

You are correct in that a "Criticism" section can sometimes be warranted, and other times not. However, even if the section is not warranted, the appropriate action is not to delete the section, but to properly incorporate it throughout the article. Therefore, in this case, absent an volunteer to properly integrate criticism into the article, the correct decision is to leave it alone, and certainly not delete it. (emphasis added) Itanalot (talk) 21:24, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

The current criticism section seems petty, like it came from a fashion magazine. Maybe Sean was payed by Rolex or Hublot to say that🤣 Old Guard (talk) 03:31, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

A vast majority of the sources in this article are from no-name fashion magazines, many of which are arguably not at arms length with the mfg. This includes several entries where a this article is parroting a source regurgitating mfg statements on superlatives, and another entry where an RM subcontractor's press release is used as a source on another superlative. If we are talking about being paid to say something - am I to understand you are nominating for the deletion of those entries as well? Itanalot (talk) 19:24, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

I reread your earlier responce and looked at the Rolex article, the section about murder there makes sense as the murder was notable enough to have its own article. We can use press releases as a source, there is a template for it: Template:Cite press release. Criticism from fashion magazines is fine if it is a notable critique article and not a hit piece. Which 'superlatives' are you talking about? I'm fine with anything inappropriate being deleted, such as the 'criticism' within the Criticism section, of which none was of any note Old Guard (talk) 03:36, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

You keep using the word 'notable', but your definition plainly does not match the one used on Wikipedia. What exactly do you mean by a 'notable critique article'? MrOllie (talk) 03:47, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

The RM robbery in BH was notable enough to have its own article. I am assuming you are satisfied.

The criticism is appropriate. I am not sure if you have seen the two large banners on top this article indicating the article was written by a paid editor and is not encyclopedic. Barring a complete rewriting of the article -- and I concede this article is not at the level of others such as Rolex or Omega -- it is necessary to include this criticism to balance out what is essentially an advertisement hosted on WP. Itanalot (talk) 22:24, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

I meant an article on Wikipedia you fucking genius🤣 Yes it's a bit advertisey, feel free to remove those parts. There aren't supposed to be criticism sections, see Wikipedia:Criticism#Avoid_sections_and_articles_focusing_on_criticisms_or_controversies Old Guard (talk) 18:44, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Criticism is not a policy - it is tagged as an essay. It's just somebody's opinion. If that's your only objection, though. I'll just rename the section. MrOllie (talk) 18:48, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

I dont think your argument is good enough to warrant sarcasm. I am also confused by your edit on 30 September. There was no mention of autism in this article on watches yet you somehow "reduced Autism" -please elaborate

The Rolex article exists because the crime invovled the nephew of some sultan. I see no difference between the rolex incident in singapore and the rm incident in beverly hills aside from the nature of the perpetrator. To say that the singapore incident is notable enough to have its own article whereas the beverly hills incident should not even be mentioned in a related article is at best stupid and at worst biased.

I will remove parts per your suggestion Itanalot (talk) 21:00, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

The controversy section, if I recall correctly, did not exist when I made the comment, but that is not an issue. "Controversy" is different, I believe, to "criticism," in that the examples you have pointed to in the Rolex, Omega, and Cartier articles are examples of actions taken by or related to the company that are notable newsworthy events and are likely to cause public shock or outrage. For example, the controversy section of the Omega article talks about the company's environmental and human rights record. This is fundamentally different to stylistic criticisms of the product as it is reporting on an event rather than individuals' opinions, and is also significantly more noteworthy. Timceharris (talk) 15:43, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, Wikipedia isn't for giving fashion advice or covering non-notable robberies that can happen with any expensive thing, plus they all come from non-notable sites. Omega have notable points for criticism, unlike the current article, so I'm removing the section Old Guard (talk) 23:18, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is for covering whatever the reliable sources think is relevant. We should not be picking and choosing based on our own preferences. This is notable because reliable sources noted it. Combs's opinion got a lot of coverage - I added a few more cites. We could add more, but I don't want to overwhelm the sentence with cites. MrOllie (talk) 23:20, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Again, since this isn't sinking in - what is 'notable' is what reliable sources write about (that is, what they note). It is not what you personally think is interesting or relevant. MrOllie (talk) 03:46, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

You are projecting, a part of you knows that you have trouble with new information sinking in. Are you a Virgo perhaps?

Reliable sources covering something alone doesn't make it notable. Even if NYT and WaPo wrote these articles about Sean, the information itself is not notable and doesn't help people trying to learn about this company. This Sean person doesn't seem to be a watch critic, nor well-known amongst watch enthusiasts or the general public, and it reads as incredibly petty. 'non-relevant celeb regrets buying ugly watch'

The kinds of murders and/or robberies mentioned happen with any luxury product. The murder mentioned in the Rolex article is notable enough to have its own article, does this one? No. Old Guard (talk) 19:40, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

"This Sean person" is certainly well-known amongst the general public. I live in a different continent from him and most of my knowledge of popular music died out with the 1970s, but I certainly know who he is. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:03, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

That is interesting to know, but is that continent within the Anglosphere? The plurality of RM's sales are from Asia (a quarter of that from Japan alone) and a third of their revenue comes from women - I doubt RM buyers from either of these demographics know who he is. See Puffy AmiYumi Old Guard (talk) 08:20, 15 October 2023 (UTC)